| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Clause 4
Mr. William Ross: I beg to move amendment No. 128, in clause 4, page 2, line 12, leave out 'may' and insert 'shall'.
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dame Janet Fookes): With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 84, in clause 4, page 2, line 13, leave out 'views' and insert 'consent'.
No. 125, in clause 4, page 2, line 14, leave out second 'Northern Ireland' and insert
No. 83, in clause 4, page 2, line 14, at end insert--
No. 100, in clause 4, page 2, line 14, at end insert--
Mr. Ross:
Amendment No. 128 centres on the use of the word "shall". You will be aware, Dame Janet, of the earlier debate on whether we should use the word "shall" or the word "may". At that time, the Minister seemed to have some objection to "shall". The word appears six times on page 2 of the Bill, most of them in the top quarter of the page, so I do not understand the antipathy towards a simple word that can mean so much. The Minister knows that the use of the word "shall" would strengthen his hand in this context.
The inclusion of the word "shall" would leave the Secretary of State with no option--he could not be pressured to refrain from having a referendum for the purpose of obtaining the views of the people of Northern Ireland. I would have thought that that was a very good thing.
There will be those who will say to the Secretary of State, "Oh no, we are very much against a referendum. You really cannot do that." He would have Dublin knocking the door down to try to stop a referendum under certain circumstances. The SDLP, Sinn Fein, the IRA, old Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and heaven knows who would try to stop a referendum if they thought it suited their purpose, which is of course to ensure that Northern Ireland is taken out of the United Kingdom. Anything that would keep Northern Ireland in would of course be met with objection.
I do not see how on earth the Secretary of State could or should resist the amendments. After all, if such provisions had been in place in 1985, all the concerns expressed by the Unionist population over the agreement of that year could have been very rapidly disposed of by reference to the population, and the Secretary of State would not be in the position he is in today, of having to jump to the demands of Dublin.
The Dublin Government would not have an input into the government of Northern Ireland, and they would not on a daily basis, as Mr. Bruton told us in a recent speech, be in a position to make use of the Anglo-Irish Agreement of 1985. A referendum in Northern Ireland would have rapidly disposed of the whole monstrous edifice.
I do not see why the Secretary of State should not agree to my very simple propositions. All I am asking is that, if the people of Northern Ireland believe that a change in the constitutional status of Northern Ireland is resulting from the negotiations, there should be a referendum that would be binding on Her Majesty's Government. In other words, we are asking the Government to put into print what they say will happen--if there is a referendum, they will take note of it. In that context, "take note" means that they will accept the result.
I should have thought that, in those circumstances, the Government should be willing not only to accept the amendments but would leap in exclamations of joy to thank me for tabling them. [Laughter.] I do not know why there is such hilarity on the Labour Front Bench when they say that they accept the Government's point of view. That is what we were told.
If the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Dowd) does not watch out, his head will fall off. The Labour Front-Bench team have been telling us all evening that they agree totally with the Government on this issue. [Hon. Members: "New Labour."] New Labour is new in some respects, but certain little rumblings of old Labour are still around. That is a matter for the Labour party; we are not concerned with it. All we are concerned with is gaining the support of the Labour Front-Bench team for the improvements to the Bill that I am proposing. I see no good reason why the hon. Member for Redcar (Ms Mowlam) and her hon. Friends should not support me.
We are told that the Government want to ensure that they have the support of the people of Northern Ireland and that they want to keep the United Kingdom intact. They have not shown much sign of supporting those of us who are trying to do so, but that is what they tell us. Here is an opportunity for them to put down a marker for the whole world and say that they are prepared to go along with the will of the people of Northern Ireland when it comes to its constitutional status. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will rapidly rise and agree to accept my modest recommendation.
We in Northern Ireland are very familiar with the Government and the Irish nationalist parties talking about demands for change as if all the changes that have been made in Northern Ireland since 1968-69 have been brought about purely to improve the administration in Northern Ireland, to improve the security of the people of Northern Ireland--with about 3,000 dead, the policy does not seem to have been all that successful--and to promote dialogue, understanding, consensus, fairness and peace in the Province.
One of the SDLP Members told us earlier that we were divided by history. I thought that we were divided not so much by history as by the question of which nation we wished to belong to--the constitutional issue. I have to say yet again that, in the light of all that has happened so far, my proposal seems a sensible route. The Committee should think of the confidence that my proposal would build in the people of Northern Ireland. They would be aware that, by an Act of Parliament, they would certainly be able to state their opinion of proposed changes. The door would be opened, as the Minister said earlier.
Mr. Trimble:
A window of opportunity.
Mr. Ross:
A window of opportunity, as my hon. Friend says.
My proposal would protect the constitutional position of the country, which would take a load off the Government's shoulders. They could say to the Americans, the Irish Republic, Europe and any country in the world, "Look, here the people of Northern Ireland have stated their opinion. We have to abide by the principle of democracy in Northern Ireland. We are very happy to accept that opinion."
There is therefore no good reason for the Government not to take my view on board and act on it. The reality is, of course, that the Government have other pressures on them. However, they should show a bit of manhood, stand on their own feet and defend the unity of the kingdom, because we all want to live in the kingdom.
I believe that when the Government consider my brief remarks with the care they deserve, the Minister will hop up to say that he thinks my proposal a wonderful idea. However, Mr. Bruton has not been very helpful in this regard. He is clearly intent on making further changes in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. He said in a recent speech that the Irish Government had been given the right, under the 1985 agreement, to put forward views and proposals. They have been doing that daily ever since. He also said, yet again, that work was needed to get a settlement on the basis of the joint framework document.
Even Ministers and Labour Front-Bench Members understand that that view of the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic is not acceptable to the Unionist population of Northern Ireland. Indeed, I wonder whether it is acceptable to a wider community--what my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir J. Molyneaux) was fond of describing as the greater number in Northern Ireland. I believe that that greater number, which extends beyond traditional Unionist opinion, would also view with a measure of alarm the possibility of going into an all-Ireland republic. Those people were not all that anxious, therefore, to have the joint framework imposed on them.
I believe that the various proposals we have made to get such agreements put to the people and to stop the Government overriding the desires of the greatest number would be a step forward, and would inspire confidence among the people of Northern Ireland. They would take away the fear, distrust and lack of faith in the Government's good intentions. There would be a remarkable improvement in atmosphere in Northern Ireland, and all sorts of good things could flow from the change I propose.
The truth is, as the Secretary of State knows, that the people of Northern Ireland perceive that endless concessions are being made to the gunmen.
'the constitutional status of Northern Ireland resulting from these negotiations, or any agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, and the result of any such referendum shall be binding upon Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom.'.
'(1A) If any outcome of the negotiations provided for in this Act does not receive the support, in a referendum, of a majority of those entitled to vote it shall not be proceeded with.'.
(1A) The Secretary of State shall consult the Government of the Republic of Ireland on the wording and timing of any referendum on constitutional proposals affecting the relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |